Millions of fans around the world, including myself, cheered NBA Commissioner Adam Silver's decision to ban Donald Sterling for life yesterday. It felt right and definitely seemed to be a just solution to Sterling's abhorrent remarks. But 24 hours later, I've been re-thinking whether or not the punishment was the best way to generate progress in the NBA. Does an exclusively punitive remedy move the league forward as much as another option might? Should the league and its commissioner be willing to give Donald Sterling a second chance in exchange for some concrete, measurable, and real progress? How could the NBA do it? It could be done simply by Commissioner Adam Silver using his leverage to ensure that the next owner of the Los Angeles Clippers is either an African American investor or an African American led group. Think about it. Only one NBA team, the Charlotte Bobcats, in a league 80% African American, is owned by an African American. That's a situation that almost everyone agrees needs to be corrected. The question becomes how can the NBA use the Donald Sterling situation to fix this. Well, first they can maintain their current punishment and hope that Sterling sells the team to an investment group led by an African American. Already the names of possible suitors such as Oprah Winfrey, Floyd Mayweather, and Magic Johnson have surfaced. The problem is, what if Sterling refuses to sell to a minority group out of spite? He’s got nothing to lose (and for that matter nothing to gain) at this point so why should he cooperate? He obviously doesn’t need the money. But Sterling does, presumably, need to find a way to redeem his reputation unless he wants to spend his final days as one of the most despised men in America. And that—potential redemption—is what Adam Silver and the NBA could offer Sterling in exchange for true progress. That outcome, increasing the greater good, could be achieved if Adam Silver and the League decided that racial advancement and increased minority ownership in the League were more important than merely banning an 80 year-old mean spirited guy in the twilight of his life. That kind of progress could happen if Silver and the League took a step back and decided to play long-ball. If Sterling agreed to overturn Donald Sterling's lifetime based upon the following two conditions: 1. Sterling enters into an agreement to sell at least 10% of his team to a group led by African Americans. 2. Sterling provides the African American group a contractual Right of First Refusal to purchase the team either upon Sterling's death or within a ten year period. This would, in effect, virtually guarantee that the Los Angeles Clippers next owner would be an African American. Sterling would get something he would likely want—his ban overturned and a chance at some redemption--and the NBA would get something even more important. Sure it feels good that Sterling is banned and he will be forced to sell the team, but wouldn't the overall purpose better be served by ensuring the next owner of the Clippers is by a minority owner? Wouldn't this also be a case of poetic justice as well? That Sterling’s racist remarks were turned around and used in a way that led to more diverse ownership? And what’s the real downside? Sterling's lifetime ban is overturned and he gets a chance to somewhat try and repair his reputation. That downside would be worth it, in my opinion.And remember, it only happens in exchange for the Right of First Refusal that meets a goal that the NBA Players’ Association want to happen—more owners of color in the NBA. At the end of the day, Donald Sterling didn't kill anyone. He's just a racist who has a history of discrimination. He should be severely punished, but by thinking outside of the box the NBA can end up with a result that will have a positive impact long after the final buzzer sounds on Mr. Sterling’s life. What do you think? Should Adam Silver and the NBA owners offer Donald Sterling a shot at redemption in exchange for guaranteeing the next owner of the Clippers is African American? Ask yourself, what would be better outcome in five years time? Knowing that Donald Sterling is banned and that he was forced to sell the team or knowing that the NBA found a way to use Donald Sterling’s hurtful words to achieve something that everyone can agree is a positive outcome? I think that if Adam Silver wants to truly achieve something for greater good of the NBA and its players, he should be willing to overturn Donald Sterling’s lifetime ban in exchange for the Right of First Refusal. Such a scenario, if adopted by the League, would thus guarantee that this negative chapter in NBA history resulted in real progress and racial advancement.

I have to admit, when I first saw the headline that Sterling was banned for life, one of my thoughts was whether or not this meant that the thought police had finally won and that free speech was finished. But after thinking about it, the way I see it now is that basically Donald Sterling is a dreary-souled idiot who basically got fired from his job.

Unlike most of us, Sterling doesn't have a daily job to which he has to attend. His job is that of real estate developer and basketball owner. But just because he owns things doesn't mean that basic rules of decency and civility should not apply.

An employee who works in any type of professional environment could not say what Sterling said without paying a consequence in the form of losing a job. Think about it. If any CEO in America made similar statements, they would be fired. Not just for the racist nature of the statements but also for the stupidity of them.

How could a boss expect his employees to co-exist in an environment with such an obtuse, ignorant and malicious individual? They couldn't and they wouldn't. If an employee said something similar to Sterling's comments they would be terminated from their job and everyone would understand. Case closed and that's what NBA commissioner Adam Silver did.

I think also he took into account Sterling's appalling record (as a human being not just the worst owner in sports) and decided his firm (the NBA) could not allow its brand to continue to be associated with such a low-life. Look at the way Sterling treated his wife? If you really want to see the kind of character he has check out the SmokingGun's feature on his "dirty" deposition. The guy needs to crawl back underneath the rock from which he lives and get out of the public eye. He's past the point of redemption and there's nothing I can see about the way he lives his life that is inspiring or uplifting. The exact opposite.

Some might say that we are creating a dangerous precedent by coming down so hard on Sterling, but I would disagree. He said something stupid and racist. There really is no place for that in a civilized society or in any kind of a functional workplace. Especially from an owner. Leadership comes from the top, right? As a result, people as fortunate as Sterling should be held to a higher standard.

He's not going to jail, he's not being stripped of his wealth, and he's not being run out of Los Angeles. He's just losing the privilege of being allowed to associate with the NBA. It's the same punishment anyone else would likely get for such racist statements, except we would be terminated as employees and in his case, since he's the owner, he's being banned.

What a sad, but poetic ending based upon the life Sterling could have led if he had used his power and influence to improve the world instead of having such a craven, hedonistic, and prejudiced approach to life.

I was fortunate enough to get a review from Dan Berger. He is a power-reader, one of top reviewers on Amazon and trusted enough to be part of Amazon's Vine Voice Program. Here is a link to his review which I'm going to reproduce here. I think he's done a better job of describing the book than I have:

2 of 2 people found the following review helpfulStrong treatment of a collision between race, politics, celebrity and justice in Atlanta, April 25, 2014

This review is from: Hallways in the Night: A Legal Thriller (Kindle Edition)Apparently a first novel, this book surprised me. It’s fast-moving and well-told. O’Leary shares with Tom Wolfe the ability to flesh out with present-day realism a race-money-politics-and-celebrity tale set in Atlanta, and with John Grisham the ability to tell a good, taut courtroom story.

Atlanta police detective Dave Mackno, sitting through a boring stakeout late one night deep in the city, suddenly finds himself in an altercation with the city’s star baseball player Remo Centrella, who, bull-strong and pumped full of steroids, nearly beats him to death before Mackno shoots him. The only witness is a blonde Centrella has just given a black eye, who flees into the night.

Thus begins a story that pulled me in faster than usual. The shooting derails the team’s until-then stellar season and imperils the finances of mercurial billionaire owner Ray Manning. It triggers political maneuverings by the white governor, Frank Durkin, and black district attorney Maurice Bass, an ambitious lawyer who made his name mobilizing black anger at a white power structure and police. Police shootings of unarmed civilians on streets in the ‘hood are high on the list of things he hates. Mackno is exonerated by the police department’s internal investigation, but Bass indicts him anyway, and so begins a journey leading to a media-frenzy trial.

O’Leary has done plenty of homework on everything from police procedure to legal tactics to high finance. He notes in an afterword that he took some liberties with the legal procedure, but as a former news reporter who covered courts for years, I didn’t see any howlers. It all rang true enough for me.

He places the story in the Atlanta of a decade or so ago. He navigates deftly Atlanta’s distinctive blends of race, politics and celebrity. Ray Manning is reminiscent of Ted Turner in a lot of ways (if this is ever made into a movie, I nominate John Slattery from “Mad Men” to play him). But the other politicians, while suggesting familiar local types, don’t seem to be attempts to characterize, or caricature, any ones in particular.

O’Leary takes a different tack in one major way from Wolfe in his approach to a story like this (Wolfe has dealt with racially-charged, media-hyped incidents in at least three of his bestselling novels, including “A Man In Full”, also set in Atlanta). Wolfe’s characters don’t have major back stories; they find themselves thrust into events whirling out of control to which they must respond in the present without that much reference to the past.

O’Leary’s characters, though, have back stories that count, and the weaving of these into this story is what drives the plot and makes it interesting. His character arcs are positive, suggesting growth is possible, forgiveness exists and people on both sides can learn to look beyond racial stereotyping.

Mackno’s police memories date back to the Atlanta Child Murders and the Rodney King riots, and O’Leary’s treatment discussion of those from different perspectives is well done. You understand where Mackno and other white cops are coming from – and how they’re not all the same – but you also get a fair telling of life as black Atlantans might have experienced it in the Jim Crow, Civil Rights and present eras, and the scars left by those times.

Interestingly, O’Leary notes in an afterword that he was writing another novel, created a back story for it, and found the back story so interesting that he gave it its own book – this one. It is now the prequel for the original story, not yet published. I look forward to it.﻿

An overall great Read that Kept me Guessing and Made Me feel Like I've had a Peek Inside the World of International Espionage

This book was recommended to me by one of my former Professors when I was back visiting Duke. We were discussing books and he remarked it was one of the best he has read in years. I picked it up based upon his endorsement and am very happy I did so.

The book is not perfect and I'll confess there was a point where I questioned my Professor's recommendation but by the time I closed the last page, I can say I wholeheartedly agree. This is a true classic spy thriller written by an author (33 years with the CIA) who is clearly the real deal. Anyone who enjoys espionage or books of intrigue will, in all likelihood, love this book. One of the best things about Red Sparrow, it literally gets better and better and better the further you read, and I have to say I felt as if I have spent much of the past week traveling between DC, Eastern Europe and Russia.

The opening of the book is superb as it involves some tradecraft between a CIA handler, Nate, and his agent, a high level Russian mole, who meet clandestinely on the streets of Moscow. As I began reading the book, I began to feel that it was going to be a winner. After the initial opening in Moscow, we're introduced to the female protagonist Egarova. I immediately liked her story and it was clear from the way Matthews wrote it that he has a gift for creating interesting characters. As a side note, I think it's safe to say that one of the things that makes Red Sparrow so interesting is that every character is interesting. Even the smallest of ones are interesting. I can't think of any author who does this better.

But after we are introduced to the main characters, I thought the book flagged a little bit as we find out about Russia's Sparrow School and when Nate and Egarova first meet. I thought this part of the book was slow moving. But, at about page 90 to 100, it was as if a switch was turned back on and the novel began to soar, climbing higher each section until a wonderful crescendo.

A great many twists and turns, some awesome depictions of Vladimir Putin and the Russian culture, and a plot that literally kept me wanting to turn the pages to find out what happens next and to see how things are finally resolved.

Pacing was excellent, the plot was completely unpredictable, and Matthews wraps it all up in a way that is authentic, credible, and masterful.

One of my favorite parts was the way Matthews was able to create such great imagery whether it be CIA HQ, Moscow's secret service HQ, or a tony Inn near Georgetown.

A brilliant book that is worthy of all the praise it has received.

I'm a major John Le Carre fan, and this book is as good as any of his. If you're looking for a great read that will make you feel like you're part of a counter-intelligence operation, you will enjoy Red Sparrow.

﻿Is it time for a Student Loan March on washington?﻿

﻿Like millions of Americans, I took out student loans to finance my higher education at Duke.

I can still remember how easy it was for the 25 year old version of myself to sign on the dotted line and collect a check that had me living a carefree, and decidedly upper-middle class lifestyle, while in law school without thinking twice about the ramifications of passing on the bill to the older, married with three children, version of myself.I'm sure Duke didn't think of it this way, but looking back I tend to think of my first disbursement of student loans as analogous to a drug dealer who got me hooked on debt by making it so easy on the front-end.

Flash-forward 15 years later and I can assure you that my law school debt has had a negative effect on my life. As a matter of fact, if there is one piece of advice I have given out consistently since I graduated from law school it has been to tell students: "Stay out of debt. The pain and sacrifices you will have to make once you are in debt are much worse than any pain and sacrifice you would have to make to avoid it." I hope some have listened.

Because debt has affected me (at one point in 1998 I was denied the right to lease a washer and dryer for my apartment...talk about humbling) I have thought a lot about the issue and have come up with three ideas that could be part of the solution:

1.) Put a hard cap on the amount of student loans that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. Let's say we decide $90,000 is the most a person should be forced to carry when done with their education. Anything above that, the lender takes a risk. This would result in two things:

First, with less loans to pay for education, colleges and universities would be forced to lower costs. Instead of just passing on costs to students who have to spend the rest of their lives paying bills, the institutions would (guaranteed) find ways to lower the costs. Basic economics 101: If you subsidize something you get more of it. If you tax (or remove subsidies) you get less of something--in this instance the something is debt.

Second, a lot less people would graduate in a crippled state. This would benefit the economy in countless ways. Earlier household formation, more home purchases (why isn't the housing industry working to address this issue to gain more buyers) and a better allocation of resources as workers would become more mobile. Lenders could still make loans in amounts over $90,000, they would just not be federally guaranteed. In this situation, both lenders and borrowers would be much more careful in their transactions. (Question:What number do you you think loans that cannot be forgiven in bankruptcy should be capped at?)

2.) Allow borrowers with student loans to pay off the loans (or at least a portion of them) with pre-tax dollars. We allow pre-tax dollars to be used for medical bills, vision care, and for funding our retirement. As everyone agrees we are in a 1 Trillion dollar student loan crisis, why don't we help borrowers pay off debt sooner and more easily with pre-tax dollars. This would be a natural extension of 529 accounts. I guarantee any politician who gets this idea implemented (it's one that has been discussed by other in the past﻿including Michael Lux on his blog student lost sherpa) ﻿will become a hero to millions of voters. And, because the lenders will still get paid under this plan, they don't have to fear the big-money lobbyist backlash.

3.) This idea dovetails with number 2: allow borrowers to pay off student loans with 401K retirement funds and/or the above referenced 529 accounts. If parents can pay for tuition with pre-tax dollars via 529s, why can't borrowers pay loans used to pay tuition off with pre-tax dollars?

To me this idea makes a lot of sense. The counter argument might be that retirement is much too important to borrow from retirement savings, however, by borrowing from it up-front and paying down debt it is likely that these now debt-free borrowers will end up having more money to save and invest for retirement over time. Ironically, using 401K money now to pay off student debt might free them up to make much bigger contributions in the future.

Also, by getting out of debt, the borrowers will likely spend more money as consumers, thus benefiting our economy. Allowing student loan debtors to pay off debt with money from 401Ks or 529 might thus allow them a better long-term future with a more secure and higher funded retirement in the long-run, while benefitting the economy in the short-term.

I imagine the big banks and retirement providers might want to fight this proposal (although not in public) because they would lose assets, but we, as borrowers or those who love borrowers, can have a much stronger voice.

Along those lines, should we call for a day of action? Should student borrowers "March" on Washington? Perhaps we should. I'm just blogging out loud here, but maybe that's what is needed to get some movement on this issue.

Maybe our elected leaders need to see the faces and hear the voices of the millions of Americans who are living under the burden of student loans.

What do you think? Should we have a Student Loan Relief March this Fall in DC......Maybe in late September before the mid-term elections? Is it time we speak with one loud voice and demand some solutions?

If the Big Banks on Wall Street can be bailed out and if we can send billions of dollars in foreign aid to countries (some of which don't even like us) can't we at least let student loan borrowers pay off some debt with pre-tax dollars or enact legislation putting a hard cap on loans that can't be forgiven so that another generation does not fall into the same debt trap we have?

Please let me know your thoughts and more importantly your ideas in the comment section. Hopefully someone, perhaps a Milleniall just starting out, has the bandwidth to take this idea and make it a reality.

I might sound overly optimistic, but the more we share, the more unified we become, the more quickly we can try to solve this problem.

Here's are links to 2 stories on the 1 Trillion Dollar student loan crisis one via ABC News and one via NPR. Take a look at the links and please consider getting on-board and helping to solve this crisis.